Contract Interpretation Regimes

Dan Wielsch
{"title":"Contract Interpretation Regimes","authors":"Dan Wielsch","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Freedom of contract requires the integrity of social institutions that ensure the preconditions for private autonomy. This has been largely ignored by a private law doctrine that works on the assumption of the state being the supplier of background justice. The article argues for an institutional turn in contract interpretation. Depending on whether contracts can link up to existing conventions or have to create their institutional context in the first place, courts may apply either an ‘institution‐preserving interpretation’ or an ‘institution‐creating interpretation’. This implies the need to refrain from following universal rules of contractual interpretation. Rather, legal doctrine should focus on the development of sector‐specific standards of interpretation and on support for private legal regimes that ensure socially reflexive constructions of contracts.","PeriodicalId":430410,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regulation of Contracting Private Parties (Topic)","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Regulation of Contracting Private Parties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Freedom of contract requires the integrity of social institutions that ensure the preconditions for private autonomy. This has been largely ignored by a private law doctrine that works on the assumption of the state being the supplier of background justice. The article argues for an institutional turn in contract interpretation. Depending on whether contracts can link up to existing conventions or have to create their institutional context in the first place, courts may apply either an ‘institution‐preserving interpretation’ or an ‘institution‐creating interpretation’. This implies the need to refrain from following universal rules of contractual interpretation. Rather, legal doctrine should focus on the development of sector‐specific standards of interpretation and on support for private legal regimes that ensure socially reflexive constructions of contracts.
合同解释制度
契约自由要求社会制度的完整性,以确保私人自治的先决条件。这在很大程度上被私法理论所忽视,私法理论假定国家是背景正义的提供者。本文主张在合同解释上进行制度性转向。根据合同是否可以与现有公约联系起来,或者首先必须创造其制度背景,法院可以采用“制度保留解释”;或者是一个‘机构‐创造解释’这意味着需要避免遵循合同解释的普遍规则。相反,法律理论应侧重于发展部门的具体解释标准,并支持私人法律制度,以确保合同的社会反身性构建。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信